High Hedges (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06038, in the name of Mark McDonald, on the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill.
Before I invite Mark McDonald to open the debate, I call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, to signify Crown consent to the bill.
For the purposes of rule 9A.13 of the standing orders, I advise Parliament that, having been informed of the purport of the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill, Her Majesty has consented to place her prerogative and interests in so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purpose of the bill.
Many thanks. We can now begin the debate. I call Mr McDonald, if he is ready.
15:35
I am delighted to open the debate, Presiding Officer.
I am very pleased that Parliament has before it the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill, and I am delighted that we have this opportunity to put this new law in place to benefit people in Scotland.
I am glad that there has been widespread support across the chamber for the bill. That much was apparent from early in the process, even before I introduced the bill, when my final proposal obtained cross-party support. I am grateful for the on-going interest, support and encouragement that I have received from fellow members—as well as for the casework, which has helped to shape the bill. The legislation will meet a clear need and desire expressed by people in Scotland in their engagement with Parliament on the issue.
I have found that taking forward the legislation has been very rewarding, but I am conscious that this is not the first time that Parliament has considered high hedges and that legislation on the matter has a long history. Indeed, proposals for member’s bills on the issue were launched on three previous occasions, without those ever proceeding to be considered as bills. I am therefore pleased to be completing a piece of unfinished business.
The then Scottish Executive consulted on the issue in 2000, although the number of responses was relatively small in comparison with the number received in response to a similar consultation in England and Wales the previous year.
The more recent consultation undertaken by the Scottish Government in 2009 attracted in excess of 600 responses, of which 93 per cent were from private individuals, the majority of whom described themselves as being “in dispute”. Not surprisingly, a significant majority of respondents—77 per cent—favoured a legal solution to the problem, and more than two thirds favoured replication of the English and Welsh legislation. I am grateful to Fergus Ewing, who had already done a substantial amount of work on the issue when he had ministerial responsibility for the area, not least that of leading the work behind the 2009 consultation. That gave me a strong basis on which to build my own proposals.
Both I and the officials working with me have met many people and organisations in the course of preparing for the bill and taking it forward, including the Scottish tree officers group, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Court Service, the Scottish Mediation Network and the Woodland Trust. I also visited South Tyneside Council and Hartlepool Borough Council for a first-hand account of how similar legislation works in England, and met with the campaigning organisation Scothedge a number of times. The officials supporting me have met a further range of organisations, including the Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the directorate for planning and environmental appeals.
We heard earlier that the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB Scotland have recently written to MSPs to express their concerns about the inclusion of deciduous shrubs and trees in the bill, and I have acknowledged their concerns about the potential impact on wildlife and biodiversity. As I said earlier, I am satisfied that the guidance to be provided by the Government on the bill can address those issues and ensure that those potentially negative impacts do not arise in practice. I am therefore grateful that the minister has agreed that both the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the RSPB will be invited to participate in the drafting of guidance on the bill. I am happy, too, that Scottish Natural Heritage has already indicated a willingness to participate in developing the guidance, as it, too, has invaluable expertise to share. I am also grateful to the minister for ensuring that local authorities have been consulted on the potential impact of widening the bill’s definition of a high hedge. I know that many of the issues raised in response to that were considered at the Government’s meeting with local authorities on Monday to discuss implementation.
One of those issues is the impact of the bill on woodland or forests, which Stewart Stevenson raised at stage 1. The short answer is that this is a bill about high hedges, so it is not designed to impact on woodland and forests, which as a general rule are not planted as hedges. I confirm that the Forestry Commission has been consulted during the bill’s progress, and I am sure that the issue can be clarified in guidance to practitioners.
I now turn to the bill itself. It has become clear to me—I am sure that many members across the chamber will recognise this—that there are a number of apparently intractable disputes across Scotland that revolve around the presence of a high hedge, with no easy resolution in sight and no apparent willingness on the part of neighbours to resolve those disputes amicably. In my view, the bill is the best way in which to achieve a practical and sustainable resolution to a long-standing problem. I will now take a short time to explain the bill.
The bill enables those who consider themselves to be adversely affected by the height of a high hedge to apply to their local authority for a high hedge notice. It gives those people an opportunity to put their arguments to an independent body and to have their voices heard, which is an opportunity that they do not have at present. It is important to note that an application must specify all the steps that have been taken to resolve the dispute prior to the application, and local authorities will be able to dismiss applications if that has not been done. The local authority will decide whether the hedge is adversely affecting the reasonable enjoyment of the applicant’s property. In doing so, it will take account of the views of the owner of the hedge and all relevant factors, including the amenity of the wider area.
The bill’s definition of a high hedge has been the subject of much discussion. The bill as introduced mirrors the definition that is used elsewhere. It defines a high hedge as a hedge—that word is important in making it clear that the bill will not usually impact on forests or woodland—that
“is formed wholly or mainly by a row of 2 or more evergreen or semi-evergreen trees or shrubs”,
that
“rises to a height of more than 2 metres”
and that
“forms a barrier to light.”
The amendment that the Parliament has agreed to today widens the definition to include deciduous trees and shrubs by removing the restriction.
The bill gives local authorities powers to make and enforce decisions about high hedges. They will be able to assess situations and make independent decisions on whether high hedges are affecting the reasonable enjoyment of properties. It is fair to point out, however, that the local authority’s decision will seek to strike a balance between the competing rights of neighbours, and the representations of both parties will be taken into account by the local authority. It must make a decision having taken all the circumstances into account, including the amenity of the wider neighbourhood, and if it finds that a high hedge is having an adverse effect, it must advise whether any action should be taken.
Where the local authority decides that action should be taken, it will issue a high hedge notice. The notice will set out what initial action is required to be taken to address the adverse effect and what preventative action is required to prevent the adverse effect from recurring. The high hedge notice will also set out the timeframe within which action should be taken.
The bill provides a right of appeal to the Scottish ministers against decisions by local authorities. In practice, appeals will be heard by the directorate for planning and environmental appeals, and it will issue full details of how that process will work in practice in due course.
If an owner of a high hedge does not take the action that is specified in the high hedge notice, the local authority will have the power to enter the property and undertake the work itself. It will then be able to recover the costs of doing so from the hedge owner. In summary, the bill provides a mechanism for resolution.
Recourse to the local authority is, however, to be used as a last resort. Primary responsibility for resolving disputes over high hedges should lie with the individuals concerned in the first instance. As I said, the bill requires that applicants for a high hedge notice must have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matter before they make an application to the local authority.
The success of that approach is borne out by experience elsewhere. In England and Wales, what started off as a large number of inquiries became a number of formal applications, which quickly became a small number of formal complaints and almost no instances of enforcement action. It is important to emphasise that the application to the local authority should be the last resort, not the first.
The bill also provides for local authorities to charge for high hedge notice applications. In difficult financial times such as these, I consider it important to enable local authorities to recover the costs of making a decision. However, I made it clear at the outset that I do not intend the process to be a revenue raiser for local authorities, and the bill reflects my view. Fees must not exceed an amount that local authorities consider represents the reasonable costs of deciding on an application. Should a local authority undertake work in relation to a high hedge, it will be able to recover any costs in that regard as well.
As I said, it appears from the figures that we gathered in respect of England and Wales that a large number of initial inquiries became a small number of formal complaints and even fewer cases where action by local authorities was necessary. That experience shows that simply creating a formal mechanism for resolving disputes encourages the resolution of most cases without the need for local authority involvement. At stage 1, Scothedge said that, with the passing of the bill, 92 per cent of the cases of which it is aware will resolve themselves. Local authorities can therefore have some reassurance that the costs associated with the process should not be too high and that the number of cases involved should be manageable.
I was interested to hear all the evidence at stage 1. I took the opportunity to attend all the committee’s evidence-taking sessions. There was a lot of useful evidence from a number of organisations including Scothedge, the Woodland Trust Scotland, RSPB Scotland, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and Bell Ingram, and from officials from the Isle of Man, the Scottish tree officers group and Dundee City Council. We heard evidence that indicated that similar legislation is in daily use elsewhere and that there is no reason why the approach could not work in Scotland. The evidence also indicated that the existence of the legislation, rather than necessarily its enforcement, will resolve many of the problems associated with high hedges.
Much of the discussion at stage 2 centred on the meaning and definition of a high hedge. That discussion continued today, and I was pleased to support Anne McTaggart’s amendment this afternoon. That amendment will widen the scope of the bill to ensure that it can deal with all hedges that are impacting adversely on the reasonable enjoyment of domestic property.
At stage 2, members were also interested in the fee provisions, which I have described. I emphasise that the bill provides the flexibility for local authorities to set their own fee levels in accordance with local circumstances.
A significant collective effort has got us to this stage, and for those who will implement the bill, the hard work is just beginning. I am aware that the Government held an implementation meeting on Monday in Edinburgh with local authority representatives and others. The meeting considered crucial matters, such as when the bill will be implemented, when local authorities will be ready to work with the provisions, what guidance for members of the public might contain, how members of the public might meet pre-application requirements, approach neighbours and make complaints and what the process would be thereafter. The meeting also considered what guidance for practitioners might contain, as it might also address the factors that a local authority might consider when making decisions.
The intention is that the guidance will be developed over the next six months or so to enable local authorities to make the necessary financial and organisational changes to implement the new powers in the next financial year. I look forward to the legislation being fully in place and used effectively.
I am therefore pleased—indeed, delighted—to move,
That the Parliament agrees that the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill be passed.
15:46
I am pleased to be here for the debate. A legislative framework to tackle high hedges was a manifesto commitment of this Government, and I am pleased to see it come to fruition.
Mark McDonald has outlined the parliamentary history of the issue, which I do not intend to rehearse. As he said, legislation on high hedges has been a long time coming, which highlights just how difficult the issue has been to resolve.
I thank Mark McDonald for introducing the bill. It was a significant undertaking that has nevertheless made speedy progress through Parliament. In February 2012, he explained to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee his reasons for not consulting on his proposal to introduce a bill, and here we are, slightly more than a year later, debating the bill at stage 3. Of course, that work could not have progressed so quickly without the work that my colleague Fergus Ewing undertook when the issue came under his portfolio, which was a strong foundation upon which Mark McDonald could build the bill.
I, too, offer my thanks to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee. I gave the Government’s views on the bill to the committee during its evidence session on 19 December, and followed the previous evidence sessions with great interest. I also thank the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The level of detailed consideration given by all committees of the Parliament ensures that legislation is as good as it can be.
The Government has supported the bill consistently during its progress through Parliament. We recognised that Scotland was the only part of the United Kingdom without high hedges legislation. Scotland has benefited in learning from other parts of the UK, and I hope that members will agree that we have before us a well-thought-out bill that will address high hedge problems across Scotland.
As well as giving evidence to the committee during its stage 1 consideration of the bill, I was happy to participate at stage 2, during which amendments that sought to widen the scope of the bill were considered. At stage 1, I said:
“The Government has taken quite a relaxed view on that ... we will listen to what Parliament thinks is the appropriate way forward.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; c 16391]
At stage 2, I advised that I had written to local authorities to seek their views on the potential impacts of widening the definition of a high hedge in the ways proposed. Earlier this afternoon, I outlined the responses that I received from local authorities in respect of an amendment at stage 2. I also advised that my officials, who have been supporting Mark McDonald, will work with local authorities to produce guidance that will address a number of their concerns, and I am satisfied that the flexibility within the bill will enable local authorities to address those and other concerns.
The first step in that work with local authorities took place earlier this week when representatives from a number of local authorities attended an implementation meeting with officials. I was pleased that representatives from Scottish Natural Heritage and the directorate for planning and environmental appeals also attended to provide their input. It will be helpful for members if I discuss some of the detail of that meeting. It was a positive meeting, at which those who attended engaged openly with my officials on how best to make the bill work as we move forward towards implementation.
Of particular interest was the guidance that will be produced to accompany the bill and what it needs to cover. As Mark McDonald suggested, there will be guidance for members of the public and for practitioners. Guidance for members of the public might contain examples of the pre-application requirements that local authorities might consider, how people might approach a neighbour who owns the high hedge, and what the process would be thereafter, should their approach have been unsuccessful. It would also detail how to make an application or appeal a decision.
There was also a discussion about guidance for practitioners and what that might contain. Issues that might be addressed include the factors that a local authority might consider in making its decision, whom it might consult in certain circumstances and the impact of all those things on fees. I was pleased that the meeting was also attended by an official from the directorate for planning and environmental appeals, who was able to explain to those present the circumstances in which appeals could be made. The official also covered how appeals might work—for example, what advice might be required by those hearing the appeals and how that would be addressed.
Those at the meeting also discussed the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government
“examine the feasibility of establishing a central tree officer to provide a core of expertise to local authorities”.
Although the initial views of the local authorities my officials met on Monday suggested no great desire for the provision of such a post, they indicated their willingness to give the recommendation further consideration. It was also pointed out that it would be important to seek the views of the councils that were not represented at that meeting.
The committee also recommended that
“the Scottish Government take the opportunity of the on-going review of Scottish Planning Policy to examine the issues raised such as residential development in proximity to woodlands”.
I am happy to confirm that, as I indicated in my response to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee at stage 1, my officials will ensure that the issue is considered in the review of Scottish planning policy.
SPP sets out ministers’ priorities for how we plan for Scotland, while the national planning framework sets out where nationally important developments should take place. The existing SPP was published in 2010. In September 2012, I announced a review of it, highlighting three key drivers: bringing the policy up to date; sharpening the focus on planning’s role in supporting sustainable economic growth; and emphasising the importance of place. The review has been informed by a period of pre-draft engagement, in which stakeholders’ views have been sought on how the existing SPP works in practice and on any priorities for change.
With regard to place, we do not propose to change the policy, but the intention is to draw in existing policy from “Designing Places” and to set place-making at the heart of planning policy. The draft SPP will stress that, in order to create successful places, we must consider the relationships between buildings, natural resources, travel and other infrastructure. A draft will shortly be published for consultation and we expect the revised SPP to be in place by the end of 2013. It is also worth noting that the existing SPP contains policy on protection of woodland, the very point made by the committee in its consideration of the bill.
I am pleased to continue to offer the Government’s support beyond the bill process itself and into the implementation phases; indeed, as members have heard, that work has already begun. The meeting that my officials had on Monday with representatives from local authorities was simply the first step. That on-going and valuable engagement with councils will ensure that the bill is implemented as intended and will provide local authorities with tools to help them. Any such tools need to be practical and workable. Given that Parliament has now agreed that the bill should be broadened, that implementation work and the provision of guidance will be particularly important.
I welcome the bill and encourage members to support it at decision time.
I call Sarah Boyack. You have a fairly exact five minutes, Ms Boyack.
15:53
I take the hint, Presiding Officer.
Like other colleagues, I point out that this legislation has been a long time coming and builds on the work of many people; indeed, my former colleague Scott Barrie had two goes at promoting a bill on this issue in the Parliament. For all the reasons that others highlighted in the earlier debate on amendments, it is important that we get the detail of the bill right.
First, I thank Mark McDonald for picking up this issue and steering it to today’s concluding debate. I also thank the committee clerks, everyone who submitted evidence to the committee, MSPs more widely in considering the bill and the committee for its work in scrutinising it.
The bill’s crucial purpose is to put in place a process to resolve neighbour disputes about high hedges that people believe are interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of their domestic property. The process that will now be in place to enable applications to be made to the relevant local authority and to give it the power to settle disputes between neighbours about high hedges is a step welcomed by the many people who find their lives disrupted by the fact that they cannot get a resolution on a matter that is preventing them from enjoying their property.
The bill does not mean that everybody will be happy at the end of the day, because the process is about dispute resolution. The onus will be on the local authority to take everybody’s views into account and consider whether a hedge is having an adverse effect. The bill gives a local authority the opportunity to issue a high hedge notice to require the hedge owner to remedy the problem and prevent it from recurring. There is also a big stick at the end of the process to enable the authority to do the work itself and recover the costs. I share Mark McDonald’s hope that the new framework will concentrate minds to the extent that some of the long-standing disputes will be resolved through negotiation, without having to go through the process set out in the bill. Mark McDonald outlined the fact that the provisions are not free—that will also concentrate many people’s minds.
Although there is a relatively small number of disputes, a key part of the bill is that it will offer the prospect of dispute resolution and allow people to move on. Anyone who has taken representations or evidence from a constituent who is involved in such a dispute will be aware that it dominates their lives and prevents them from moving on. I hope that the bill will be of use to many of those people.
The fact that there is a right of appeal to the Scottish ministers against the decision of an authority on any high hedge notice makes sense and provides an effective check and balance to the system.
Labour signed up to the principles of the bill when it was introduced but, at the stage 1 debate, we argued for a close look at the detail of the bill, especially the definition. We were concerned that some of the most difficult disputes would not be addressed by the bill and that it would be years before the Parliament was likely to return to the issue. Our discussion on the amendments showed that there is no appetite among the majority of members in the chamber to come back to the bill early doors. I am therefore particularly glad that Mark McDonald and the minister were prepared to consider Anne McTaggart’s amendment and to work with her to agree wording that they could support during today’s stage 3 consideration.
The campaign group Scothedge conducted a survey in 2009 that concluded that almost one fifth of respondents suffered from the impact of deciduous hedges, such as beech or rows of deciduous trees, so I am very glad that we have been able to strengthen the bill. The worry that there would be a huge number of high hedge complaints and cases following the introduction of the legislation in England has not transpired. Although the bill must be monitored, adding the tree preservation order to the new process gives us a robust system all round.
The representations from the SWT and RSPB Scotland provide a timely reminder that the local Government staff who are responsible for implementing the dispute resolution procedure will need clear guidance from the Scottish Government on survey work and clear policy criteria so that a view can be reached on the issues that they will have to act on locally.
I very much welcome the Minister for Local Government and Planning’s January letter, which he followed up with useful information about the meeting that was held on Monday. I am glad that the SWT and RSPB Scotland will be involved in the process, because getting all the stakeholders round the table will be crucial to the success of the bill.
We look forward to voting in favour of the bill.
15:58
Once again, I congratulate Mark McDonald on bringing the bill to the Parliament. I also pay tribute to members past and present who have kept the issue alive in the Parliament over the years. I thank the Local Government and Regeneration Committee clerks for their support at all stages of the committee’s consideration of the bill. In particular, I thank the various witnesses whose evidence has aided the committee and helped it to shape the bill.
High hedges are an emotive issue that has over the past decade been debated frequently in the Parliament—not least, as the Local Government and Regeneration Committee heard in its evidence, because of the negative impact that such hedges can have on the health and wellbeing of both parties involved in any disputes.
The bill offers a solution to the issue, once all other reasonable avenues for settling a dispute have been explored. As a result of today’s stage 3 consideration and Anne McTaggart’s amendment, the bill will allow a high hedge notice to be issued against the owner of a property when a hedge is formed wholly or mainly by a row of two or more trees or shrubs, rises to a height of more than 2m above the ground and forms a barrier to light. If the property owner does not subsequently take any measures to reduce the height of the hedge, the bill makes provision for the local authority to take action to reduce its height.
It is arguable that the biggest topic of debate during the bill’s consideration has been whether to include single deciduous trees. Although deciduous trees are not specifically referred to in the bill, they are now covered. Cognisance has been taken of the compelling evidence from Scothedge that suggested that one in five cases in which quality of life and enjoyment of property were affected involved a deciduous tree and that, therefore, the definition in the bill should be amended to include deciduous trees in their own right.
That will be a disappointment to the Scottish Wildlife Trust, which argued against the inclusion of deciduous trees because of the detrimental impact that it thought that that would have on urban wildlife and biodiversity, the potential for trees in wildlife reserves adjacent to housing to be affected and the economic cost. I hope that it will be possible to prove that those concerns have not been realised.
I seek clarification, because I think that I heard the member suggest that single deciduous trees would be captured by the change of definition. That is not what will happen as a result of the change of definition.
I can give you back the time for taking an intervention, Ms Mitchell.
I actually said that although there had been a lot of discussion about single deciduous trees, deciduous trees—but not single deciduous trees—were now included. I concede that I might not have been as clear as I could have been.
Earlier, I moved amendment 2, which would have reduced the review period from five years to two years, and amendment 3, which would have reduced the period in which a report must be produced from 18 months to 12 months. Those amendments would have meant that it would have taken three years rather than a possible six and a half years before the issue was revisited. I still believe that requiring an assessment to be carried out no later than three years after the bill’s introduction would have been preferable, given the anxiety that high hedges can cause.
Crucially, my amendment 4 would have included in the bill provision to ensure an assessment of whether deciduous trees should be referred to specifically in the bill, rather than being covered by default, as is presently the case. In addition—and perhaps more important—it would have covered any issues that arose from the meaning of “high hedge”, as the bill is currently drafted. Sadly, my amendments were not agreed to, so it could take up to six and a half years for an assessment to be undertaken of how the bill is working in practice.
In my winding-up speech, I will highlight some of the other aspects of the bill in more detail. For now, suffice it to say that I am very pleased to see the bill completing the final stage of the legislative process.
16:03
As I am sure that other members will do, I congratulate Mark McDonald on bringing home this important bill. To that, I add my congratulations to Scothedge. We are employed to legislate, but the volunteers in Scothedge who have campaigned on high hedges over a long period exemplify the strength and depth that there is in Scotland, beyond the small number of people who are in the Parliament, to engage in the political process in a way that ultimately delivers for the public good. I commend the members of Scothedge, whose campaign is an excellent example of a voluntary campaign and who have persisted over a long period to see their objective delivered.
I say that as someone who, as a north-east MSP, has never been approached on the subject of high hedges during my time in the Parliament. For climatic reasons and because of the relatively large areas of land on which houses are built in a rural area, high hedges have not—to my knowledge—been as much of an issue in my area as they have been in other parts of Scotland. However, through the work of Scothedge and others, we have heard compelling evidence about the utter misery that is caused to many people across Scotland by the issue that we are discussing.
I was delighted to hear Mark McDonald say that a consultation response from the Forestry Commission Scotland has identified one of the things that I previously raised in relation to urban woodland as an issue that can be addressed.
As a member of the committee that dealt with this issue, I should remind members of some of the things that that committee said. Paragraph 67 of our stage 1 report remains as true now, in relation to the amended bill, as it was when we wrote it. It says:
“The Committee believes it is desirable that the application of the Bill seeks to resolve as many disputes as possible, but considers it unrealistic to expect any single piece of legislation in this area to resolve 100% of cases. This Bill is the simplest way of addressing the majority of cases relating to disputes over high hedges.”
Of course, following the extension of the definition, we might say that it will address the overwhelming majority of cases. Apart from that, I think that that comment stands the test of time.
One or two things have emerged during the passage of the bill that I think are useful. We have clarified that it is perfectly possible for action to be taken against a local authority, even though local authorities are responsible for guarding the principles and practices that are encompassed in the bill. We included national parks—I am delighted that Mark McDonald saw fit to lodge amendments on that. Further, we learned many things of which we were previously ignorant. I congratulate Christine Grahame on the horticultural explanations that the committee received. I have now heard of Russian vine and clematis montana rubens. I remain relatively ignorant about what any of that means, but I am sure that members of the committee who are more engaged in these matters might be better informed.
I have flicked through the stage 1 report while sitting in the chamber this afternoon, and I believe that almost every recommendation that the committee made appears to have been addressed, which is unusual—I assume that Kevin Stewart will touch on that when he speaks. It is a model of good parliamentary process, and I commend the bill to all my colleagues.
16:07
As a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, I welcome the opportunity to scrutinise once again the proposals of the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill. I fully support efforts to address the problem of neighbour disputes that result from overgrown vegetation and agree that local authorities should have the authority to intervene in those cases.
My amendment, which was supported by Christine Grahame, has sought to ensure that the bill applies as widely as is reasonable, and that no individual is excluded from achieving a resolution to a problem arising from intrusive hedging as a result of a subtle technicality that is contained within the provisions.
It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to ensure that the measures that are contained within the bill are fit for purpose, and to fully address the concerns that communities might have about local wildlife populations and biodiversity.
The current provisions in the bill allow local authorities to exercise discretion in their consideration of applications and to take into account the wider effects of a removal order on the environment. I do not believe that the expansion of the definition of a high hedge will compromise the ability of local government to protect areas of local and regional significance. Further, I anticipate that the addition of deciduous species to the definition of a high hedge will be of minimal impact in practice.
Garden trees represent around only 1 per cent of Scotland’s woodland assets and single trees will not be covered by the provisions of the bill. Overall, I believe that that represents a pragmatic approach to dealing with a wide range of local concerns while delivering a remedy to those families who have suffered disputes with neighbouring properties for too long.
We must acknowledge that high hedges not only act as a barrier to light, but lower property values, obstruct boiler flues and block television cables. Overgrown vegetation can cause a variety of problems that make life difficult for the adjacent properties and encourage community breakdown.
I support the aims of the bill and believe that it is right that families that, for too long, have been involved in unsuccessful negotiations will be provided with a resolution to achieve an end to their neighbour disputes.
I thank my colleagues for their cross-party support. I also thank Mark McDonald, the member in charge of the bill, and Derek Mackay, the Minister for Local Government and Planning, for their support. I also thank the clerks of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for enabling the bill to be agreed to—I hope—at 5 pm tonight.
I advise members that there is a little bit of time in hand at the moment—not much, but a bit—for interventions.
16:11
I am usually told that there is no time in hand. This is a first.
All credit to Mark McDonald, because it is not as easy as it looks to pilot a member’s bill. I have done it myself. Colleagues on the committee can be quite tough on you. He has had enough jokes about a privet member’s bill and cutting it down to size, so he will be glad to know that there are no horrible puns coming in my speech.
Apart from those.
Apart from those that I have trailed.
I also pay credit to others who have gone before. Scott Barrie worked for a long time on the issue, as did Fergus Ewing as Minister for Community Safety when, if I recall rightly, he tried to pursue it under nuisance legislation. It was difficult to find a way to frame the legislation.
It was very important to keep the definition to two or more shrubs or trees. As I said at stage 1—I will repeat it—we know an elephant when we see one and we know a hedge when we see one, but just try to define an elephant. It took a long time to agree how to define a hedge.
It was tempting to move into the arena of single trees, but that would have been a big mistake. It would have opened up—if I may use a metaphor that does not really fit—a whole can of worms, although I appreciate that single trees can raise issues and, indeed, cause many disputes in our neighbourhoods.
At stage 2 I said that the problem has been exacerbated by higher-density housing, together with our expectations about the use of our gardens. My home, which is 100 years old, once had only clothes poles in the garden for drying lots of clothes every day, pre-washing machines and tumble dryers. By the way, this is not the story of my life; the clothes poles predate me. The only deviation at one point was chickens during the second world war. I hasten to add that that was also before my time. What do we do now? We have conservatories, patios, decking and barbecues. We go to B&Q or Dobbies Garden Centres and some people buy and plant leylandii. The garden is called our outdoor living space. And why not?
Of course, the genesis of the bill was the growth—quite literally—of the leylandii, which some people do not appreciate when they plant it. Undoubtedly, it is a bit of a monster if it is allowed to grow unfettered. Members who missed or, worse still, heard my perorations on plants, shrubs and trees at stage 2 in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee—Stewart Stevenson referred to them—will be pleased to know that I do not intend to reprise them. However, if they are really interested, they will find them in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee Official Report of 6 March 2013. It is quite the “Beechgrove Garden”.
My serious point was to emphasise the fact that deciduous trees and shrubs do not always drop their leaves. I was delighted to second Anne McTaggart’s amendment 5, as per my earlier remarks.
The bill is heavy-handed in places with notices and threats. Perhaps it will be enough to send the high hedges police van with big labelling on the outside of it to get the neighbour to do something. However, I hope that the passage of the bill will be a deterrent or, even better, an education to people. I hope that it will get them to think about their neighbours and get the balance right in the enjoyment of their own and their neighbours’ gardens in as much as they both seek a modicum of privacy.
I congratulate Mark McDonald and Scott Barrie. Most of all, I congratulate the campaigners from Scothedge. I say to campaigners outside the Parliament that it may take time to get there but, sometimes, we do get there and we do it in a collegiate and cross-party fashion.
16:14
I welcome the fact that the bill has got to this stage, and add my congratulations to Mark McDonald MSP and to the Scottish Government on assisting him in bringing it to the Parliament.
Agreeing to the bill at 5 pm will be the start of the process. It will help many of our constituents across the country. From correspondence that I have received over nearly six years and from what constituents I have met have said, I know that high hedges blight the lives of many people. As a consequence, they also hamper relationships between neighbours. Christine Grahame touched on that. I am fully aware that the bill will not fix every situation—we were very much aware of that on the committee—but I am sure that the extension of the definition of a high hedge that has been agreed today will help many more households and constituents across the country.
Those of us who are members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee are fully aware that the main issue relating to the bill was the definition of a high hedge. We have heard today about the process that the Scottish Government undertook after stage 2 to further consult the local authorities. That highlights again the fully consultative approach and process that there have been thus far, going back to when Scott Barrie initially tried to introduce a bill to where we are now. I welcome the fact that my colleagues on the committee did not press some of their amendments at stage 2 to allow the Scottish Government to undertake that piece of work.
Does the member agree that the stage 2 process through which we put our bills can often provide a very useful way of testing the resolve of the promoter of a bill; of exploring issues; and of giving the Government and the member in charge of a bill the opportunity to consider what amendments might make sense at a later date and to re-engage with people who may be adversely or beneficially affected by the bill? Does he agree that that is an attribute of the Parliament that we should all very much welcome?
Stuart McMillan can have the time for that intervention back.
Thank you.
I absolutely and whole-heartedly agree with Stewart Stevenson’s comments on the parliamentary process. I am sure that there is a debate to be had on that process and that the convener of the relevant committee will want to consider Stewart Stevenson’s comments. The stage 2 process in which we considered the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill was extremely helpful and useful.
Another issue that has been raised is the review. I thank Mark McDonald for accepting my amendment to have a review within five years of the act coming into force. I also thank colleagues on the committee for accepting my amendment at stage 2. That amendment represented a measured approach to ensure that the legislation will be scrutinised in the future and does not fall off the political radar. Doing that within five years rather than sooner—we discussed that earlier today—allows for a reasonable period of time to let the act be introduced, to settle and to be fully utilised. I am therefore delighted that the shorter timeframe that was suggested in the amendments that were discussed earlier will not be pursued. Local authorities need to have the time to ensure that the act is working.
As all the members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee know, we heard evidence that there will be a large increase in the demand that is placed on local authorities in the first couple of years of the legislation being passed. That happened elsewhere in these islands, but things then settled down. It was not wise to press the idea of having a review in the midst of potentially high demand on local authorities. I am therefore glad that members disagreed to amendments 2, 3 and 4.
To conclude, the bill is welcome. It will aid many of our constituents across the country. As a result, I certainly look forward to voting for it at 5 o’clock.
16:19
I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute at stage 3 of the bill. Like many in the Parliament, I have been supportive of the bill’s intentions for much longer than I care to remember.
I acknowledge the effort that goes into taking a member’s bill through the Parliament. I have done it before, so I know the enormity of the task. It is not like being a minister, surrounded by an army of civil servants drafting and redrafting the bill, answering every question about whether the word should be “and”, “if” or “but” and providing copious explanatory notes and financial memoranda, with briefing notes coming out of your ears—and indeed the general hand holding that ministers sometimes need.
I know that Mark McDonald had assistance from the Scottish Government, which would have made life significantly easier, but that does not diminish the amount of work that he will have had to put in as the member in charge. On that, I congratulate him. The essence of any successful member’s bill is to hit on the right idea, which invites consensus across the chamber. Mark McDonald has done that, and he deserves our thanks for it.
I confess that it gave me unalloyed delight to listen to Christine Grahame’s gardening tips. I shall rush to the Official Report of the stage 2 discussions so that I can understand the level of interest and expertise that we have on this Parliament’s benches. I invite Christine Grahame to come and visit my garden and help me at some point in the future.
I shall attend only in an advisory capacity. Jackie Baillie will be the lady with the pruning shears.
Oh, and I was getting excited for a moment. Clearly, I am to be disappointed.
This journey started a number of years ago with our former colleague Scott Barrie MSP, who has been mentioned by other members. Fergus Ewing, too, put in considerable work. I am sure that they will both be delighted when the bill is passed, as it hopefully will be this evening. I also acknowledge the work of Colin Watson, Derek Park, Pamala McDougall and all the members of Scothedge who have encouraged and cajoled us—frankly, they have told us to get on with it—and they will be equally delighted, not least because of the acceptance of an amendment today that will undoubtedly improve the bill, with the inclusion of deciduous trees and hedges.
I must confess that I never thought that I would get excited by trees, but constituent after constituent came to seek my assistance, and I began to understand just what difficulties trees and high hedges can cause. In fairness, it is not the trees and high hedges that are the difficulty; of course, it is to do with their owners and the neighbour disputes that arise when we do not think about the impact of our actions, or lack of action, on other people.
Let me share some stories. Mrs A from Shandon was concerned that her neighbour’s trees were overgrown and encroaching not just into her garden but into another neighbouring garden. Her neighbour refused even to discuss the matter with her. He even refused to discuss it with the local authority when it tried to help. That was back in 2007, and they have still not had a remedy. Mrs B from Helensburgh had a similar problem in 2008. She is surrounded on three sides by huge conifers and has been living virtually without daylight, with a neighbour who would not address the problem.
Another lady from Kilcreggan had a similar problem in 2008. She was told that she could prune back the branches and the roots that cross the boundary, but her neighbour threatened litigation if she even dared to enter his property. In the case of Mrs D from Arrochar, a 60ft pine tree was a potential hazard, swaying dangerously in any high wind—and we can acknowledge that there are lots of high winds in Scotland. The owner refused to do anything about it, and the local authority was unable to help.
Would the member agree that, in the kind of disputes that we get around high hedges, and indeed elsewhere, the parties tend to take an entrenched position that is psychologically difficult to get out of? By providing the intervention of another party to focus the minds of those in dispute, the High Hedges (Scotland) Bill is probably a model of how we should deal with many such interpersonal disputes, which can often be entrenched for decades, far less a few weeks.
I am grateful for that intervention, and I could not agree with the member more. Some of those constituents approached me as early as 2003 or 2004, and somebody contacted me about a case just two weeks ago. The matters remain unresolved. I have probably had about 30 cases over the intervening period, which is a significant number.
The majority of people either resolve their disputes or suffer in silence. In all cases, the people concerned have come to my surgery because of inconsiderate neighbours. No remedy was available to any of them until now. I know that they will be delighted when the bill is passed tonight, because it will make a practical difference to their lives. A dispute resolution process will be in place, which will drive the majority to co-operate without involving the local authority, while providing an important safety net to deal with neighbours who are determined to be intransigent.
Stuart McMillan is right to say that passing the bill is only the start. Implementation is key and I look forward to the Government taking that forward.
16:25
I thank Mark McDonald for introducing the bill and for the dedication and hard work he put into ensuring that the bill was coherent and could be delivered effectively. I am sure that the vast majority of members have dealt with high hedge cases. I am happy that the Government is backing this bill, which will provide a solution to a problem that has a serious impact on many Scots’ quality of life.
In my constituency, which has large scenic areas with beautiful views, high hedge disputes are an all-too-common occurrence. It is no coincidence that Jackie Baillie and I have had a number of those cases, while Stewart Stevenson has not. That reflects the beauty of the areas in the Firth of Clyde that Jackie and I represent, compared with Stewart’s area—I hope that Stewart will not remember that when I speak at his Burns night next February.
Full names, please.
The effect of high hedge disputes cannot be downplayed. Friends and neighbours can become bitter opponents and home owners’ ability to enjoy their surroundings can be severely limited. Property prices can be affected and darkness and reduced natural light in the home are issues of concern.
I have dealt with about 50 disputes since 2007. I visited a number of constituents, who invited me to see the situation for myself. A number of times, I was genuinely shocked by the size of the hedge that was the subject of the dispute. When I visited a constituent in West Kilbride, I found that the hedge towered above windows and completely blocked out the light from one side of the house. A house that should have had beautiful views of Arran and the Firth of Clyde was completely shrouded in darkness, even in midsummer.
Many neighbours come to amicable agreements about the height of hedges and boundaries, but there is no doubt that resentment and bad feeling can arise when a situation gets out of hand. It was clear that some form of third-party enforcement was required.
I attended a number of meetings on the issue in this parliamentary session and the previous one, and I met Derek Park, Colin Watson and Pamala McDougall, from Scothedge, to talk about the matter and hear how it could best be addressed. It was clear from the information that Scothedge supplied, often passionately, that only a legislative approach would be effective. That view is shared by many; more than 90 per cent of respondents to the consultation backed the position.
I am pleased that the Local Government and Regeneration Committee thought that the bill as introduced would cover 92 per cent of current cases, which shows how robust the bill is. There is evidence to suggest that an understanding that the matter can be enforced should assist in smoothing out disputes without the need to apply the law.
I am pleased that deciduous hedges have been included in the scope of the bill, which will help many of my constituents. I pay tribute to Anne McTaggart and Christine Grahame for their work in that regard. Stuart McMillan’s amendment to the bill at stage 2 has ensured that the bill will be reviewed within five years, to ensure that it is as effective as we want it to be, which is encouraging. I am sure that that will put at ease the minds of many people who fear either that the bill will be ineffective or that it is too drastic.
I am optimistic that the bill will effectively tackle most, if not all, high hedge disputes, which impact on many of my constituents. I am delighted that the Scottish Government will support the bill. Such legislation has been talked about in the Parliament since 1999, when Scott Barrie raised the issue. I will certainly support the bill at decision time.
I realise that one or two members were keen that single trees be included in the bill, but I note the committee’s recommendation that that should not happen, given the importance of heritage trees, the need for proper assessment of biodiversity and other issues. The bill might not cover every aspect that people wanted it to cover, but as far as most members are concerned, it is as robust a bill as we could have produced in the circumstances. It is a tribute to the Parliament that at last we have legislation that is deliverable and can be effectively enforced.
16:30
Like colleagues, I take my hat off to Mark McDonald for his work during the passage of the bill. However, in all fairness, even he would recognise that his staff have played a great part, too, and they deserve recognition. I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, of whom there were many, including campaigners, organisations that are involved in biodiversity and many others. I also thank my clerking colleagues for their efforts during the passage of the bill.
To begin with, I was a little hesitant about adding deciduous hedges to the bill’s scope. However, the minister’s clear statement that sceptics such as RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Wildlife Trust will contribute to the guidance on the bill is helpful. For those who are slightly reticent, we also have the review period. That has been put in place to look at perhaps extending the bill later, but it might result in restricting the bill, if that is required. I hope that the guidance will help in dealing with all such matters.
We have heard today many of the jokes that have been made in the discussion of Mr McDonald’s proposals. We have heard about the triffid bill and Christine Grahame’s privet member’s bill—there have been puns galore. A laugh has been had to a degree in some of the fora in which the subject has been discussed. However, as we have heard from the cases that have come from across the country, this is no laughing matter for the huge number of people who have been affected for many a year.
The problem is worse in some parts of the country than in others, because of the climate. As Mr Stevenson said, he has had no cases. I must be honest and say that, as an urban, city centre MSP, I have had no cases either. However, as a councillor in the past, I saw many cases in which high hedges caused huge difficulties, and such problems were exacerbated into even greater problems. Anything that can be done to resolve the disputes is worth while.
We have heard that dispute resolution has already occurred in some places because the bill was introduced. If introducing the bill has such an effect, members can just think what will happen once it is passed and the guidelines are in place. Many local authorities will not have to take the required action, because common sense will, we hope, prevail and folk will take the action that should have been taken some time ago.
The committee heard evidence about new developments, where conflicts arise not between neighbours but between owners of woodland and new neighbours. The minister’s statement that he will look at Scottish planning policy is a good idea. The committee heard from Dr Maggie Keegan about problems that the Scottish Wildlife Trust had in Cumbernauld, and committee members saw that area for themselves. That shows how easy it could be for such conflicts to arise.
People must recognise where a property that they are buying is and what might happen if it is on the periphery of woodland, some of which might not be very old and might grow substantially. Any help that Scottish planning policy can provide on that would be useful.
This has been a long journey, particularly for some of the campaigners, and 5 o’clock will bring great relief for many folk here. However, as Stuart McMillan says, this is only the beginning. I hope that some people out there will take cognisance of this and will take action now without more severe action needing to be taken.
We come to closing speeches. I ask members who have participated in the debate to be in the chamber for those speeches. I call Margaret Mitchell for a slightly generous four minutes.
16:35
In my opening speech, I covered in detail the complex and vexing issue of deciduous trees. As well as reducing the time for review, my amendments—had they been passed—would have specified two topics, aside from how the definition of “high hedge” was working, to be included in any report: how local authorities had exercised their functions under the bill and what implementing the bill’s provisions had cost local authorities. Those matters should, naturally, be considered by any review, but the amendments would have ensured their inclusion. I am disappointed that the amendments were not passed, given the vital role that local authorities will have in ensuring the effectiveness of the bill.
I know that the member is deeply disappointed that those amendments were not supported. Does she accept, though, that the flexibility still exists for the committee to determine its own agenda and timescale for reviewing the provisions of the bill?
Yes, I certainly accept that. However, it could take six and a half years for that review to be carried out. That is especially concerning when post-legislative scrutiny is not given the priority that it should be given in parliamentary business. If we are serious about wanting the measures to be used and to work well, the shorter timeframe would have been welcome.
Although the Scottish Conservatives supported the general principles of the bill at stage 1, we sought to improve it by lodging a number of amendments at stage 2, which met with varying success. Those included an amendment that sought to ensure that ministers would no longer have an unfettered power under section 34 to alter what constitutes a high hedge for the purposes of the bill. That amendment was also recommended by both the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, and it is to his credit that the member in charge of the bill accepted it.
Other amendments in my name were also accepted, which I confess was something of a novelty. Those included an amendment that places a statutory duty on ministers and local authorities to consult stakeholders before issuing guidance on the operation of the bill. Any such guidance that is issued will have an impact on the way in which property owners, local authorities, solicitors, advisers on high hedge disputes and persons appointed to hear appeals will interpret the legislation. I am heartened that the importance that any such guidance will have was recognised. It is imperative that it is consulted on widely prior to publication to ensure that stakeholders can comment on what is proposed.
The bill as introduced left it to a local authority’s absolute discretion whether to issue an application fee refund to an applicant under section 4. In the interests of certainty and to ensure that funds are awarded or not awarded consistently, I lodged amendments requiring councils to publish guidance stating the circumstances in which they may normally consider it appropriate to issue refunds. Again, the amendment was accepted by the member in charge of the bill, which is to be welcomed. Councils will continue to retain discretion when considering whether to issue a refund, but guidance will ensure that applicants will know when they can or should receive a refund of their application fee.
I believe that those amendments have improved the bill. I sincerely hope that it will help to alleviate the problems and vexations that high hedges can cause, which each of us in the chamber knows all too well. The Scottish Conservatives look forward to supporting the bill at decision time this evening.
Thank you. I call Sarah Boyack, again with a slightly generous four minutes.
16:40
Thank you, Presiding Officer—that might be quite dangerous.
We will get a good result with the bill which, as everyone has said, has been a long time coming. We were able to carry out a good, thorough scrutiny of the bill as it was introduced to Parliament, which has been beneficial. At the end of the day, the bill as it is passed will be a lot stronger; it will relate to many more people who are involved in damaging, prolonged disputes. It will be of help to many constituents—that will not necessarily be in every constituency in Scotland but, where there are problems, it will be useful.
I welcome the fact that Mark McDonald, the member in charge of the bill, was prepared to take a fresh look at amendments from across the chamber, regardless of who they came from. He was prepared to think about the merits of the amendments and the long-term impact of the bill. It is good that we will all be broadly able to support the bill when the vote comes.
Along with Christine Grahame, I think that we were right not to go with single trees. It was right to extend the definition, but the process of tree preservation orders already exists and the bill will complement that process. Anne McTaggart made a comment about the detailed impact of the bill that was absolutely right: sometimes people not being prepared to maintain hedges—or to take responsibility for doing so—is part of the problem. It is about ensuring that people feel some sense of accountability and responsibility. Jackie Baillie’s list of problems that constituents have brought to her and other members’ comments highlight that for many people, these are real problems that are currently incapable of resolution. The bill will help with that.
We now need to focus on the implementation of the bill. There is much that we can learn from and build on in the experience of similar legislation in other parts of the UK, in particular how best-practice guidance works and how people might be encouraged to resolve a dispute before using the procedures that we are approving.
I am keen that the biodiversity issues that have been flagged up are factored in along with the other criteria that will be examined.
Expertise needs to be developed across our local authorities if the bill is to be implemented successfully, particularly bearing in mind that many of the people who will be responsible for that already have relatively heavy workloads. For that reason, I welcome the fact that the minister is discussing the idea of Scottish Government support to provide a core of expertise to local authorities. I do not see that support as involving somebody being in place for all time; it is about the early stages of implementing the bill. That is the key point when workshops or seminars or support about what is in the guidance will be critical and when people need to build their expertise. That is the point at which it will be most useful. I suspect that not all local authorities will draw on that expertise, but people should have that opportunity so that the bill is implemented successfully.
At stage 1, we had a lengthy debate that came out of exchanges across the chamber about the impact of suburban housing development, poor-quality design by developers and the lack of long-term consideration given to structural tree planting or landscaping, with nobody sitting down and thinking, “In 20 or 30 years, what will this community be like? What will be the impact of the landscape that we are putting in place now?”
I hope that the new Scottish planning policy that will address the place-making issues that the minister referred to will be of practical use to local authorities in scrutinising applications and also to developers in ensuring that we get strong, good-quality proposals that use natural heritage, tree planting and hedges in a constructive, practical way. I hope that they will think about the future practicalities for the people who live in those developments, to ensure that they remain high-quality and attractive developments to live in.
It has been a good debate. I hope that, although it is not a silver bullet, the bill will improve people’s lives. At the end of the day, that is why we are all here. For those reasons, I am delighted to support the bill.
16:45
As has been said before, the bill will act as a deterrent and will help to resolve cases across the country. What evidence do we have that the bill can bring people together in a harmonious way? Well, this afternoon’s debate has shown that. If the bill can bring together the politicians of Scotland to reach what appears to be a unanimous conclusion on high hedges, I am sure that it will be able to resolve cases across the country.
Perhaps the bill also provides us with lessons on how Parliament conducts itself, given the consensual and constructive amendments that were lodged by several members and which were accepted by the member in charge, and given the way in which the Government took forward suggestions from different places. That approach has left us with a robust bill. As Stewart Stevenson and Kenny Gibson mentioned, the bill will not solve every case in Scotland, but it gives us a great framework and foundation from which we will be able to resolve the great majority of cases by presenting the avenue that will now exist.
The bill deals with a very human issue. Legislation, regulation and guidance may be required, but there is a very human issue involved in looking at how we can solve some of the concerns that people have. I was struck by some of the evidence that was presented to the committee on issues that the bill will provide a mechanism to resolve. One witness said:
“Our problems with high hedges have caused embarrassment, fear, stress and costly fees to solicitors. None of this would have been necessary if there had been a High Hedges Bill in place and a way of achieving resolution to the problem of a mutual hedge dispute.”
As members know, passing the bill tonight, which I am sure will happen, will not actually bring its provisions into force. At royal assent, only the definitions will come into force, but the bringing into force of the other sections will be in the hands of ministers. Can the minister give us a broad timescale within which the provisions in the bill might become enforceable law? Can he comment on whether people are already being told about the direction in which things are going, regardless of whether its provisions are in force?
The ever-helpful back bencher, Christine Grahame, has asked a pertinent question. As soon as the bill receives royal assent, we will work immediately—work will have already begun—on the guidance, and we will make progress towards implementation as quickly as we possibly can. We will look at the guidance, take on board considerations and, following royal assent, lead on to commencement.
On Christine Grahame’s earlier speech, I recall that the Conservatives moved an amendment at stage 2 asking whether one single person could bring together legal expertise, planning expertise, horticultural expertise and casework expertise. Only one such person exists in this country, and that is Christine Grahame.
Thank you.
In progressing the bill, we have been able to rely on a range of professional and practitioner intelligence in order to provide a definition with which people are happy. I know that there has been among local authorities some concern about the bill’s implementation, which is why we are working with them to address their concerns in the way that I described earlier.
Jackie Baillie pointed out the level of ministerial support that the member in charge enjoyed in taking the bill through Parliament. I asked officials to support Mark McDonald in progressing the bill, but Jackie Baillie’s description of how well a minister is supported now leaves me with deep and searching questions about what my civil servants have been doing over past months, given that Mark McDonald seems to be so well briefed. I am not sure that my horticultural expertise was up to the mark beforehand, but it certainly is now, in understanding the bill. However, I jest, because I know that the bill has achieved consensus among members. It will now provide a mechanism that can resolve issues in a very constructive fashion.
It is important that we will have the opportunity to review the bill’s provisions in the light of practical experience. I reiterate that the committee can review the bill’s implementation at any time—subject to the maximum time limit that was agreed earlier—and in any area.
The bill is a proportionate and appropriate response. It was right to go through the local government route as opposed to a judicial or criminal route to resolve matters; it was the right method to deploy in terms of a parliamentary response to the issues. It is no mean feat for Mark McDonald to have taken the bill through Parliament in such a timely and effective fashion, thereby succeeding where others—well intentioned though they were—were unable to progress a bill to this stage.
I am delighted that the Government has been able to support the bill. I know that the member in charge of the bill now wants to say more on the bill’s final stage before it is passed—I hope—this evening, with all members’ support. Again, the Government supports the bill and will ensure that its implementation assists people through guidance and its relationship to Scottish planning policy and TPOs. I thank all members for their engagement in the process.
I call Mark McDonald to wind up the debate. You have until five o’clock, Mr McDonald.
I need to offer thanks to a number of people. First, I thank the members of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which was the lead committee on the bill and which provided robust and thorough questioning and scrutiny as the bill progressed through stages 1 and 2. I thank, too, the Finance Committee, which robustly questioned me on the bill’s financial aspects, mostly through questions from the convener, Mr Gibson. I also offer thanks to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which diligently examined and considered the subordinate powers in the bill, which led to amendments that have been agreed to.
I thank all those who gave evidence to the committees—those who attended in person and those who took the time and trouble to write to the committees, often highlighting their own experiences. There are many people outside the chamber who perhaps did not submit evidence to the committees but who nonetheless showed a keen interest in the bill.
I thank my assistant, Aissa Watson—who was highlighted by Kevin Stewart—who has, since I announced my intention to introduce the bill, been regularly fielding inquiries and suggestions from many members of the public and, indeed, many members of the Scottish Parliament. At the start of the process, the queries that Aissa dealt with were about what would be in the bill and what it would cover. The queries that she deals with now are about when the bill will come into effect. It is clear from the case load that she has developed over time that there is a huge amount of interest in the bill.
I want to take this opportunity to thank to David McLetchie, who took an interest in the issue and was extremely supportive of my efforts at the outset, and who proved to be of great assistance in the early stages of consulting on the bill. It is appropriate that I put my thanks to him on the record. [Applause.]
The debate today has been constructive and consensual. Sarah Boyack made the point in her opening remarks that not everybody will be happy as a result of the legislation’s coming into force. However, the point that she made—and which I have made repeatedly during the bill’s process—is that the bill is not intended to be anti-hedge legislation; it is pro-dispute resolution. In the resolution of any dispute, or any high hedge dispute, the outcome will be that one party will be viewed as the winner and the other will be viewed as having lost. However, the point of the bill is to find a way to resolve disputes, and we hope that local authority action will lead to that.
I envisage that it is likely that the provisions will come into force—after local authorities’ guidance and implementation work has been undertaken—some time in early 2014. In essence, we are serving notice to those who are in dispute that there is, from now, a year for them to resolve their disputes amicably before the legislative remedy comes into force. I hope that that call will be heeded and that we will see many current disputes being resolved amicably.
I felt that it was important to intervene on Margaret Mitchell earlier just to make it clear that single deciduous trees are not included in the revised definition, although the review section allows a future committee to examine the definition, should it so wish.
I am grateful to Anne McTaggart for her constructive engagement during the bill’s passage and for being willing to discuss the best way in which to frame the amendment, which she later lodged, to ensure that it had the most impact. I welcome the fact that we have been able to agree the amendment that she lodged.
Christine Grahame’s speech was as colourful as her speeches always are. In fact, we have been thinking about marketing her submission at stage 2 as a gardening book. We think that it could be a nice little sideline, given the expertise in horticulture that she demonstrated. However, she pointed out that I had a difficulty at the initial stages in weighing up which route to go down with the bill. Should I go down the route of the court-based solution that was mentioned during the debate, or should I go down the route of a local authority based solution? I felt that the latter would provide the best means of resolving disputes without their becoming snared up in legal process.
Christine Grahame also made the point that people often purchase leylandii as a focal point without necessarily understanding the impact that they can have. When I launched the bill at the Mill Garden Centre in Armadale, Joe McIndoe, its owner, made it clear to me that he wants people to be given sensible advice about the impact that such plants can have when they come to purchase them. I hope that one thing that might happen as a result of the bill is that people will consider what they plant in their gardens and the impact that it might have on their neighbours.
Stuart McMillan spoke about the review provision that he introduced. That was a sensible addition to the bill because it means that the efficacy of the legislation will be looked at, and that can include what has not been included but might be included in the future. As well as the issue of single deciduous trees, there are issues around the possibility of future fee-transfer mechanisms, which I know Margaret Mitchell wanted to talk about at various stages. It might be that we could learn from the example that exists in Northern Ireland. It will also be possible to look at what is in the legislation, how effectively it has worked in practice and whether changes or modifications are needed.
Jackie Baillie made an important point. There has been some cynicism out there—believe it or not—about the worthiness of our debating the bill. Both Jackie Baillie and Kenneth Gibson brought to the chamber stories of individual cases that highlight to us the impact that situations can have on individuals. Some people out there might suggest that the bill is not worthy legislation for us to debate, but I would say that before they seek to be cynical about it, they should talk to people such as the constituents who contacted me during the progress of the bill, listen to their concerns and hear how happy they are made by the passing of the bill.
I say to Kenneth Gibson that I was a bit worried when he started his speech that he might be heading towards a rather interesting editorial in the Buchan Observer, but I think that he managed to resolve the situation in that regard. [Interruption.] Stewart Stevenson is suggesting that he has already drafted a press release, so who knows? We might have some interesting discussions to follow.
It has been clear throughout the process that a lot of people have campaigned on the subject for a very long time. I thank those who engaged with me during the process, particularly the members of Scothedge; I see some of them up in the gallery today. Not everybody whom I engaged with has been able to make it to Parliament today, but a number are here. It has taken a deal of resolve for the campaigners to pursue the matter because, as we have heard, there have been a number of disappointments for them along the way. There were a number of moments during the campaign when they thought that they were not going to see legislation coming into force; there were a number of false starts.
The campaigners diligently kept pressing and kept coming back to try to ensure that Parliament not only took cognisance of their concerns but continued to pursue and advocate on their behalf, given the very real issues that they face. It is a great credit to Dr Colin Watson, who I see in the gallery today, and the members of Scothedge that they have continued to pursue the matter over a long time. I hope that they will be satisfied not just that the decision is being reached today, but by the way in which Parliament has conducted itself in coming to the decision, given the consensual nature of the process and the debate.
Sarah Boyack highlighted that consensual nature, and it has been reflected in amendments having been accepted. Because of how the numbers stand, I could have simply rejected amendments from Opposition parties, but I thought that the most important thing to do was to listen carefully to the arguments that lay behind those amendments. That is why I was able to accept some of Margaret Mitchell’s amendments at stage 2, and I was pleased to be able to accept Anne McTaggart’s amendment and Stuart McMillan’s amendment at stage 3. Amendments have been accepted from across the chamber.
The legislation has been a long time coming. Scothedge has always said that what it wanted to see in Scotland was better legislation than exists elsewhere. I hope that, today, we have done them justice.